Religious Circumcision

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elian

Hmm, I heard on the radio today that there is a group of folks trying to get men in Africa to become circumcised to prevent the spread of HIV.. I did a google search and it would seem that there are plenty of opinions both for and against the procedure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV

---

no more excuses for religious nonsense. it's barbaric and an imposition one another. Healthier life, that's bullshit! It's come out that those studies in Africa were seriously flawed. "Brian Earp savages the studies purporting to show that male genital mutliation would prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS in African countries:" http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....eads-aids.html Bad science, bad policy. Worth a read. Go deeper into the studies he cites and links to and it seems quite clear to me that this massive campaign to rid Africa of foreskins is likely to accelerate HIV transmission rather than slow it. Actually, the two studies conducted in Africa have been largely discredited. Similar studies in Australia and Europe did not find a reduction in HIV transmission. There are a number of reasons. The first is that after circumcision, African patients were asked to abstain from sex for a month, which obviously changed the exposure potential during the study. They were also encouraged to use condoms. The uncircumcised group were not given this advice. Clearly, the study was not well designed. In any case, no child should be sexually contracting HIV before they reach their teens; at which point, they should be able to decide for themselves whether they want the operation. Delaying it does not increase their risk. Consistent use of condoms reduces transmission to near zero and therefore male genital mutilation is pointless. Courts in the 'good ole USA' are beginning to examine this and other issues related to children. No one 'owns' their child and when it comes to subjecting them to harm the courts will side with the child. You may be glad about what was done to you, but the number of men learning how circumcision has harmed them is increasing and they're documenting it [www.circumcisionharm.org]. And really, you pro-circers gotta come up with better arguments than "I had a friend once who needed circumcision and it was painful." I needed my tonsils removed, and know friends who had to have an infected appendix or diseased teeth taken out, but I don't run around saying kids should have routine tonsillectomies, appendectomies or removal of their teeth. The practical reality is, the US, with its highest circumcision rate, by far, in the western world, has the highest rates of every common STD, including HPV and HIV, in the western world. That doesn’t say much for circumcision as a STD/HIV prophylactic. I happen to be HIV+ and all the American bisexual and gay men who are my age who were infected with HIV and have died from AIDS or complications due to being HIV+ were all cut since it was pretty much routine when we were born. The primary advantage to women and men, of the uncircumcised penis is the foreskin glide mechanism. There is far less friction and chaffing and thus need for lubricant. A secondary advantage is that uncircumcised men are far less likely to act “like a bull in a china shop.”

That's nice Jimdawg but the ban on circumcision is not racist or Anti-Semitic at all, and it has nothing to do with genocide despite what you want to pretend. A surgery that's too painful for men to bear should instead be imposed on babies? It was proven by Anand & Hickey in the mid-1980s that infants feel pain more acutely than adults, yet still today most doctors and religious circumcisers use ineffective or no anesthetic. BTW, all the world medical associations who have reviewed this issue have come to the same conclusion: infant circumcision is not medically indicated. Given that these medical professionals have not been convinced by the 'evidence and facts' you hold so dear, I guess they - like the children's and infant's rights campaigners you hold in contempt - are just like 'Repubs on Fox News'. Most Christians worldwide do not circumcise their infants and even in the United States the practice of male genital mutilation is greatly decreasing compared to what it was like when I was born. Circumcision is nothing more than a primitive act of sexual mutilation but then all three Abrahamic cults are primitive anyway. Males should decide for themselves if they want to be circumcised later in life, it isn't a medical necessity either unless there is a well founded case threatening the immediate life or health of a child. It's absolute b.s. to say that circumcision reduces the rate of HIV transmission if you look at global statistics, quite staggering. Has their been a drastic decline in transmission in the U.S? Of course not! It is beyond pathetic to see fellow bisexual men condone this brutal breach on the human rights of a newborn and even go so far as to label it "religious freedom".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimdawg

I've decided to delete my post. I've stayed away from this thread, I will continue to. I'm not apologizing to anyone about my views on this topic and no longer expanding on why. I think that there's too much insensitivity. Calling a ban "good" in a view of moral superiority combined with arguments about mutilation will do nothing but insult people like me and none of the people offended by my view of the rampant racism will ever understand that the problem is the shrillness of the supporters more than the morality of the issue, and the looseness with which people go after certain select people in a subconscious way that the arguer isn't even aware of.

But you lost most Americans, as well as Jews, Muslims, religious Christians and Africans, when you said "Mutilation" and made it about religion. If you can't understand that, you can't understand why there will always be opposition to such a ban. And thus, there's nothing to apologize for.

---

This nonsense does not Alienate Americans, I am from California. So you don't speak for me. And you don't have to apologize, as no one here actually expects you to learn something new. That would, as Doctor Who said, would require a few specialized tools you lack; such as a teaspoon and an open mind.

If you will not listen to those of us here who have railed against this act, then I shall simply link part of a very ELOQUENT piece against this barbarism. Read it or not, I do not care. But for those of you interested, the link is here:

http://owningyourshit.blogspot.com/2...on-has-no.html

Now follows a copy and paste of Girl Writes What.

Why the Question of Circumcision Has No Place in the Voting Booth

It's called the tyranny of the majority. And when it comes to the rights of a disenfranchised class of people, the majority cannot be trusted to do the right thing.

When someone's basic human right to the healthy, functional body they were born with is being trampled, the ballot box is not the place to decide whether that person's rights matter.

The place to decide this matter is the same place where the ban on female genital mutilation was decided. If legislators do not have the courage to do what is right and what is constitutionally sound in the case of infant male circumcision, without the support of the majority of voters, then maybe it's time to sharpen the pitchforks.

This is indeed a question of religious freedom--the freedom of an infant to not have an irreversible religious ritual performed on him before he's even old enough to see in color, let alone choose to make a covenant with any god, whether Judaic or Islamic. Any argument in favor of circumcision on religious grounds is an argument against religious freedom, and in favor of being able to force a non-consenting, helpless human being to endure permanent, life altering and occasionally dangerous consequences simply by being born into a family which practices a certain religion.

If you need convincing, ask yourself whether we, as a society, would allow someone to force a man who was mentally incompetent to make a covenant with a god not of his conscious choosing--a god he was unaware of--by having part of his dick cut off. Would we? Really?

To be anti-circumcision is not the same thing as being anti-Semitic or anti-Islamic. It is simply to be in favor of all people's right to choose the religion they wish to practice. By circumcising an 8 day old infant, Jewish parents are denying their sons this choice--to make a covenant with god of their own free will. Of what value is our dedication to freedom of religion if we deny that very freedom to our society's most helpless members? Of what value is any covenant with any god, if that covenant is forcibly enacted upon a baby strapped to a table?

It has been largely accepted in progressive circles that a woman's body is her own, and therefore it is her right to choose abortion if that choice is right for her. Yet this choice--to do with one's body what is right for a person--is denied baby boys every single day all over the world, even here in the "progressive" west. It is denied in the name of religion. It is denied in the name of "preventive medicine". It is denied in the name of "customary practice". It is denied in the name of a lot of things that shouldn't hold a fucking candle to a human being's right to decide for himself what potentially life-threatening, irreversible, painful and unnecessary surgery ought to be performed on him.

We deny parents the "right" to inject botox into children. We deny them the "right" to give breast implants to pre-pubescent girls. We deny them the "right" to carve away pieces of their daughters in the name of custom and tradition. We do this to protect those who are unable to protect themselves, from decisions made by their parents without any consideration of the personhood of their own children. We do this even though it makes individuals and interest groups angry, because it is the right thing to do.

And yet we allow parents, religious or not, to carve away pieces of their sons. To make an involuntary covenant with god. To make bathing them easier. To "protect" them from rare medical conditions, or from a sexually transmitted disease that is both uncommon and easily preventable.

I can only think of one thing that makes infant male genital mutilation acceptable--so acceptable that it's been widely practiced by us western "progressives" for a hundred years, and has been blocked from the voting booth by its defenders--when female genital mutilation has been outlawed in the US since 1996, not even a decade after we, as a society, were made appallingly aware of the practice.

And that's that we're willing to protect our daughters from these atrocities, and yet we're all too happy to subject our sons to them. How disgustingly sexist is that?

Way back in post #24, I asked what I thought a valid question. It remains unanswered.

That aside, read over a bunch of outright hate and felt compelled to speak up.

Quote:

---

1. The only way to get rid of the act is to make the act unnecessary.

2. The reasoning is simple; if you're religious, its a good bet that your personal beliefs of God dictate your personal beliefs of country. If the country is against God, then you are against the country. This means you have to leave, or in more violent cases, start a war, or give up your beliefs. You're giving someone an unreasonable choice between a job and their culture, one that creates no lasting belief, unless you're willing to commit genocide ...

3. ... it implies that there is only one answer to a solution, ...

4. And as far as thinking its a one-way street on imposing your moral views on people who don't share them who aren't imposing them on you, this is pretty xenophobic ...

5. And shame on you for knowing how my family should live their lives better than my family.

6. I'm not saying circumcise everyone at all. I'm talking about religious freedom ...

7. I'm done dealing with this post and this argument. A lot of people against circumcision and looking to ban it, as opposed to disliking it, seem to forget that millions of people are willing to die for their religion and think its infinitely more important than your thoughts. This issue has been used to ban religions in the past on the basis of cruelty. ... Nowadays this argument is generally made amongst people who either 1. Hate the state of Israel and think that Jewish religion is cruel (that Jews are barbarians) or 2. Hate Muslims, their immigration, and think Islamic religion is cruel (that its incompatible with "Western Thought")-I've seen very little from people who want to ban circumcision from people who have any respect for religions. Even the Catholic Church is opposed to banning it on this basis. Now, is your belief in "no god" really worth imposing on others?

8. If religion causes war and is thus evil and limits the human mind, what is a brand of atheism that banishes deviant thoughts and uses all force necessary to banish religion? I say...no different.

---

1. Such a gesture would require burden of disproving the existence of YHVW, or God, in order to nullify the pact with Him/Her/It. As one whom is inclined to believe empirical evidence, this seems wholly unfair and unreasonable. It seems this way because I a do not assert existence of any God/god/Goddess/Deity, therefore I'm under no obligation to disprove what I do not think exists. As one asserts a positive this obligates them to prove said positive. After all nothing proves nothing, but something must be to prove something.

Further, such a gesture also requires one taking a stance of absolutes. There are precious few absolutes in Life, the world/s. And taking one so, using it as means of self destruction, i.e. that ending the act requires 'genocide' no less, is unreasonable at best. You are trying to disarm any opponent prior to engaging in intellectual discussion via stipulation of being victimized. Sorry, your effort is in vain as there are in truth no opponents, save perhaps your ego.

2. I disagree wholly. I am for all practical purposes deemed an atheist in the U.S.. There are large populations of Christians, Jews, Islamist, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus whom also live here. I have no desire to leave the country based solely upon religious principles. I could be Taoist and still not desire leaving, any religion, you can pick one if you like, no desire to leave based on religion.

3. See number one above. Seems to me you're the only one suggesting a singular solution, and yes it seems to be genocide in one fashion or another in any case. Apologies, I do not want to be Jewish simply because I think Jews dress funny, even compared to Amish. I don't wear any hats except metaphorically.

4. Judaism is a rather ancient belief, one I highly doubt has escaped Fran's examination. Most universities from my understanding do require some form of history, comparative religious studies, Fran is educated quite well as she teaches. So, because of Judaism's ancient pretext and Fran's demonstratively open mind, xenophobia seems more your shoe than hers. You are after all invoking righteous genocide upon high, either to eliminate poor Jews or poor Gentiles. See what you are left when clinging to absolutes? Plenty of rope to hang yourself, huh?

And by the by, most whom have posted here are clearly expressing opinion. They are not seeking to convert you or anyone. The case in question, as far as I know, already decided, done, finis. Guess it is German law to protect those unable to protect themselves, seems rather honorable in my humble opinion. See? We can express opinions, thoughts here. No, we do not all need to agree. As I said, we have fleeting few absolutes. If we all agreed, wow, absolute bore.

5. Oh, are you not telling everyone here they should be Jews or die? It appears to me you're doing so via appealing to absolutes, which I can easily dismiss. Suppose my family did not 'know best', huh? We aren't Jews, how could we know best?

6. Absolutes, gee this refrain grows weary. Drop your attachment of absolutes, please? There may be light, but if there is, light never implies a correct or only path to itself. Light is for all, and so apparently is the darkness of the hate you espouse.

7. I have no hate for anyone except myself at times. Yes, working on loving me more. Forgiveness helps, and it's not wholly a Christian concept. No one has the market cornered upon forgiveness.

8. Finally, I can agree with you about this. It is why I'm not normally a vocal, or militant atheist. And I forgive you, love you and respect you for the person you are right now. When you wrote those other things, you were a different person, you're different again now. In seriousness, please do reconsider clinging to absolutes. No of us get to stay here long. Our time is too short to continually try making it shorter. Besides, after we're gone it won't matter, it's all the same.

9. void hugs pepper. "Told you it's not about any particular religion, unless you count love & hate."

Excuse me going to go slumber in air conditioning after being a week without and 100 degree (imperial) temps. Nitol.

The first time I saw a penis with a foreskin I was envious and thought to myself "So that's what a dick is supposed to look like! Shit I've had my penis butchered!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Young Pretender

Given the blood-curdling screaming of an infant during a circumcision, I see it a preventing cruelty against children.

---

Agreed. Male circumcision of infants is genital mutilation, barbaric, and unethical. Full stop. It's also not necessary.

FINALLY -- something on which Gews and Muslims can agree !! Isn't it a wonderful world?

Actually there was one other thing they agreed on. Both Jew and Muslims in France were outraged when a French politician suggested that in light of what we now know of scientific evidence perhaps they should consider stunning cows before live-killing them. The suggestion that they change their belief was enough to unify both groups in angry protest.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/201...campaign-issue

So the moral of the story must be there will always be angry people in the world?

..at least here all we talk about is chicken and waffle fries..

Chill ye snippers of little babba boys, our Angela is on the case and is to introduce legislation to overturn the ban in the autumn... soon mummies and daddies will once again be able to lop bits off their sons willy nilly and so u can all sit back and smile and be happy... our Ange is worried about being a laughing stock it seems.. personally would rather be that than thought of as one who imposes me own will on what a child is able to keep attached to his (or her) body...

http://af.reuters.com/article/worldN...86G11D20120717

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darkeyes

Chill ye snippers of little babba boys, our Angela is on the case and is to introduce legislation to overturn the ban in the autumn... soon mummies and daddies will once again be able to lop bits off their sons willy nilly and so u can all sit back and smile and be happy... our Ange is worried about being a laughing stock it seems.. personally would rather be that than thought of as one who imposes me own will on what a child is able to keep attached to his (or her) body...

http://af.reuters.com/article/worldN...86G11D20120717

---

Fran, spare me your diatribe. The quote from her was she didn't want her country to be the only country in the world to keep Jews from practicing their rituals. You don't like it, we get it, but it's not up to you or anyone else who wants equality to stomp on religion..equality isn't just for issues you think are important, it's for all things including religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuckiesDarling

Fran, spare me your diatribe. The quote from her was she didn't want her country to be the only country in the world to keep Jews from practicing their rituals. You don't like it, we get it, but it's not up to you or anyone else who wants equality to stomp on religion..equality isn't just for issues you think are important, it's for all things including religion.

---

Like many do not confuse my wish to have infant circumcision abolished and become but a bad memory with any wish to stomp on religious ritual or belief... some religious practices have always been somewhat dubious and we do not allow them in our societies... the Inquisition for instance, burning heretics at the stake for instance, or witches, or anyone for any reason... we do not allow in our societies the lopping off of hands as happens in some Islamic societies, or the burning of live widows on the pyres of their husbands.. or the practice of thugee far more extreme than circumcision certainly, but I think most can see my point.

Because something is a religious ritual or practice does not exempt that practice from scrutiny as to its rightness by those of other religions or none, and should it be felt that such ritual is inappropriate and wrong we have no right to legislate against such? I don't think so.. and it is not because of any wish to prevent people from practicing religion, You don't get away with tarring me with that brush however much u try. I have no objection whatsoever to any male being circumcised ,,, if he is sufficiently mature and well informed to decide for himself, or in the case of infants and children, when there is a pressing a valid medical requirement so to do..

..and let me ask you this.. is my belief in the rights of equality and the right to be of my own kind also stomping on religion? Because I do not believe homosexuality is a sin, is that also stomping on religion? When I argue that I and people like me am allowed to marry the person of my choice.. is that stomping on religion? When I argue as I do and have, that homosexual and bisexual people should be allowed entry into the priesthood, and that they should be able to rise through the ranks of that priesthood like any heterosexual person has the opportunity so to do.. is that stomping on religion? When I argue that Islamic people have the right to erect mosques in western countries, and that Christians should have the right to be able to erect and establish churches in places like Saudi Arabia.. is that stomping on religion?

When religion is wrong in our opinion, more usually religion as decided by those who run and practice religions, we have the right to say so and to argue accordingly, as those of a religious bent have the right to argue for themselves... we live in a free (supposedly) society where we have freedom of thought and speech... or do those freedoms not apply when we believe religions have got something wrong? We have abolished many barbaric religious rituals and practices in the west... not to stomp on religion but for was was seen and believed to be for the good of people, their freedom and the society in which they live... any religion which removes from a human being his (or her) right to decide the future of his or her own body deserves censure. Because something is religious, does not make it right any more than because something is secular makes it right neither does it make it wrong... but when we see what we believe to be a wrong wherever we see it, we have an obligation to say so and try and right that wrong.. religions and the religious do it all the time and tell people like me what a Godless and bad bunch we are.. I defend them that right as I defend my right to argue back.. or is it that being Godless, that I must be tarred bigot and deprived of freedoms that only the Godly have right to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mariersa

It's about time someone has taken a position on this nonsensical "religious" ritual, the 4skin must be in the spleen category, oh well ya don't need it? so cut it out/off What a crazy excuse to throw a party around the old fire, waving hand crafted spears etc. and hey we'll do it in honour of that idol we made yesterday afterall, sacrifice is sacrifice. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Plus, uncut guys are a hell of a lot cleaner and most definitely more sensative, sensual. But that's all in another thread. Just my 5 Deutsch Marks worth!!!

---

Well said! I agree!

This issue is totally toxic. See previous threads.
I am keeping my opinion to myself.

You just gave your opinion Jem.lol

Attachment 13147Oh no.

Keep it civil everyone please, please, and pretty please (and yes, I have not always been the best leader by example on this topic, but I am reformed).

- Drew :paw:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew

Attachment 13147Oh no.

Keep it civil everyone please, please, and pretty please (and yes, I have not always been the best leader by example on this topic, but I am reformed).

- Drew :paw:

---

I am always calm, always awesome, usually civil but alas quite unreformed Droosy Woosy... but am always suspicious wen certain peeps revive old threads. makes me wonder if they have the wherewithall 'tween the lug'oles 2 start a new 1...

..and wy, Jem, is the subject toxic? U saying it's 2 hot to touch and we shudn't discuss it? Don't intend to get involved again but no subject shud b considered taboo... awful thing fear of the hot topic... hot as in controversial, not hot as in hot... leads 2 suppression of human thought u kno... and however much we like or dislike something, we shud never suppress discussion and certainly never suppress human thought... although ther r many nice "freedom luffing" peeps who like 2 do just that... freedom of speech isn't bout freedom 2 discuss the things we like, approve of and r comfy wiv... is 'bout other peeps having the freedom 2 discuss and explore the zillions of things we don't like and make us uncomfy an' all... and peeps will get hot under the collar 'bout many such things.. is how human progress is made babes.. for gud or ill... and 1 persons gud is another's ill... an' vikki verki...:)

Funny how liberals and leftists are such bigots when the subject is Moslems and Jews.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamieknyc

Funny how liberals and leftists are such bigots when the subject is Moslems and Jews.

---

So the wish to allow a baby boy the right to grow up unmolested and not have a quiet important bit of his body lopped off without his informed consent is bigoted hey? How did we do away with the inquisition and witch burning, and how do we maintain laws which forbid lopping off of hands, stoning to death, arranged marriages... what appalling bigotry that we fight for the our rights as gay and bisexual people in the face of great pressure and opposition from Islam, from Judaism, from Catholicism and Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, Mormonism et al to be allowed to be free and love who we will.. where is the much vaunted freedom of the individual when an infant child has no say in what happens to his body because religion, tradition and culture or parents say so? If there is bigotry, I think u apportion it to quite the wrong quarter...

Pul-eeze, as they say- everyone knows circumcision would be as noncontroversial as pierced ears but for the fact that it is associated in Western cultures with Jews, and in Europe in recent years, Moslems.

People need to mind their own damn business.

Don't you dare get your lil' daughter's ears pierced, you are mutilating her ears.

Don't feed your child a soda or a candy bar. Nutritionally they are horrible for them,and it's proven that soda depletes vitamins in the body.

Don't you dare mutilate your child's hair by getting it cut, without them being of age to consent to it.

Childhood obesity and diabetes is at an epidemic proportion, from bad diets and lack of exercise.

Circumcision is a time honored covenant for many, in fact, billions, and if you were to ask any of those guys, a very, very, small percentage would say that they were mutilated.

Get the point!?!!

People that live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Don't judge people for sinning differently than the way you sin.

P.S. I would love to see a poll on what type of penis people prefer. Cut or uncut. I am voting that the good majority will say cut.

Here endeth the lesson.

Have a good day!

How many Humans does it take to make mutilation a 'honoured tradition' and not a pointless disgracefull act?500? 1000's? A billion? Lets have a poll.lol

I don't know Gearbox. Let's ask the hipster folk that have oversized gauge earrings, and tattoos that cover 70% of their body the same exact thing.

Better yet, let's ask the millions of 2 yr old girls, and some boys that have pierced ears.

Let's ask the millions of kid's that have to eat a vegetarian diet because it's their parent's choice.

Like I said before,

Don't judge people that sin differently than the way you sin.

Drew has already been in this thread asking people to keep this civil. Calling circumcision molestation of children is not civil, it's rude and designed to be offensive to parents who made the choice based on medical advice. Fran, quite frankly, you are not a mother, no matter the love you feel for Kate's kids, you are not a mother and you have no idea how some sanctimonious garbage from people like you can hurt a mother and father who did the best they could for their children. I have told you how I feel about this before and you continue on your way you can join the others who insist they are right on how to think feel and live on my ignore list.

I may not be a natural mother but if u think I have no maternal feelings for my adopted daughter and her sister you know very little... you can tell me as often as u wish what u believe but just because u tell me doesn't mean I have to accept a word u say or stay quiet about the things I believe .. the hurt and harm inflicted upon an infant child and the removal of his right of consent is far greater than any words of mine can hurt or harm u or anyone else... sanctimonious garbage it may be, but it is the sanctimonious garbage of around 70% of the human race and sanctimonious garbage of the overwhelming bulk of the medical profession of the western world outside of the United States and most of the rest...

humankind revolves, learns and changes its ideas..... but honesty, fran, your constant judgmental and opinionated ways of expressing yourself about other people, are most of the reason that people avoid listening to people like you.....

speak up about what you believe in by all means... but seriously, get your head out of your ass..... a child molester as you have called some medical experts and specialists, is a term that most people would associate with one of the lowest forms of life to breath air, they are often isolated in prison for their own safety and well being .... and well any intelligent person can see in the papal thread that nobody in that thread is talking about doctors and nurses in the catholic church......

I know that you will justify your actions by arguing that its a shock tactic to get the biggest reaction, from people, using a very offensive and dangerous label for a person.... and never mind the fact that mislabeling a person with such a dangerous label, can destroy a persons life.......... and its for that sake that I am thankful that you are not a parent..... as its parents that would not sacrifice their own beliefs for the sake of their children, that often place their children at the most risk....
and yes do the big song and dance about how you act around kates children,... but they are still kates children, and not your own.... its harder for your ideas to be challenged when its not your own flesh and blood that is the basis for the challenge to your beliefs.... and hence why its easier to call others, child molesters than face the fact that you would be a unfit mother

Yet again a reason (albeit perhaps a foolish one) why I do not have children. Because it is a HARD decision to make. I would have preferred to have my foreskin intact but my parents did the best they could. I pouted over it when I was a teen but I'm not going to hang them for making that decision. Actually, I've been told that I should be glad because I have more foreskin than most, but it's still snipped. I have also seen/heard a few cases where circumcision was medically necessary - one person developed cancer as an adult and he was lucky not to lose the whole organ and another where the foreskin was so tight as to impede proper movement.

Even after saying that I'm still changing my mind back and forth thinking about clitoral removal in females and then saying, well if you don't like that, what is the difference in infant males? It's an issue that I have mixed feelings within my own self so how could I ever feel comfortable expecting or placing a judgment on someone else about it?

I can only speak for my own personal experience and I KNOW that my parents loved me and had my best interest at heart..they didn't act out of malice or spite so I - a) understand and b) forgive them.

There is a lot of stuff that we humans put up with in the name of cultural norms in order to fit in with the larger community for our own survival and benefit. What the "stuff" is varies from culture to culture.

This is my first post on here but felt like I had to respond. Growing up in the fifties and then the sixties it was not cool to be uncut. My parents left me intact and I
don't know why as my older brother was circumcised. I remember as kids when Mom made us shower together that there was something different about my brother. I never had the guts to ask them why. Like when us little boys would do show me and I will show you mine, I always felt different. Going into high school and having to take showers in the gym class where the other guys could see my uncut penis was nerve racking. There was maybe one or two others guys like me and you could hear the giggling and comments about our penis's. I would always try to push the skin back so I would look somewhat like the others guys. Then I got drafted and into the army. No privacy there but it seemed like there were a lot more uncut guys there so I did not feel so out of place. No one made big deal out of it. Fast forward to age thirty-seven and I had enough of this, so I went to a urologist to take care of the problem. Yes I did have myself circumcised at that age. It was uncomfortable with the stitches, you dare not get an erection that was hard because the mornings were tough. After all was healed and I began to resume sexual relations all was fine and dandy. I was proud to bare my circumcised penis. All my life I had wanted this.

After all this and I am much older now and wiser I would not have had it done. I think this is the way man was made and it should stay that way. You guys who are cut do not know how sensitive that little piece of skin is. Especially when someone is touching it or playing with it. I don't have the sensitivity that I use to
for sure. Being uncircumcised was not a problem as far as cleanliness. Just pull the skin back in the shower and wash the penis every time your in the shower which should be every day. Yes it can be a huge problem if you do not do this. I found out in later years that my Dad was uncut but then from his era it was unusual or different to be cut.

I think there is somewhat of a push to try to scale back circumcision. I am just an ordinary guy and my opinion is God put that piece of skin there for a reason and
it should be left there unless there is a medical problem. A lot of Dr's and nurse's do agree that circumcision is not necessary. All said and done, I now know that I should have left myself intact. This is my two cents worth if it means anything. Just a personal experience I had.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Szeppelin

Oh, for the sake of Christ, woman; Shut the fuck up already.

---

No, I won't. You don't like what I say put me on ignore. But I will not let people call people who do the best they can for their children, child molesters.

This 2013 round of comments have not mentioned molestation at all..until well... guess who?

There are interesting stats on who keeps restarting this thread after month or near year breaks ...if drew takes a good look.

Interesting that five posters have been placed in cool out time or banned...just saying...rule 2
(not necessariy what they post on this thread though)...still interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tenni

This 2013 round of comments have not mentioned molestation at all..until well... guess who?

There are interesting stats on who keeps restarting this thread after month or near year breaks ...if drew takes a good look.

Interesting that five posters have been placed in cool out time or banned...just saying...rule 2
(not necessariy what they post on this thread though)...still interesting.

---

what does 5 posters being banned for their posts in other threads, got to do with this thread .... I thought you did not like threads going off topic with things that had nothing to do with the thread ?.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darkeyes

So the wish to allow a baby boy the right to grow up unmolested and not have a quiet important bit of his body lopped off without his informed consent is bigoted hey?

---

fran was the first to mention molestation of a child in the thread in 2013..... so what was the point you were going to make ?

fran knows how offended people get over the idea that they molested or allowed their children to be molested.... cos she knows what most people think when they hear those terms... its happened in the other threads where she has made the same type of remarks and then apologized later to people....